Question 1:
Consider the line on page 72 that says “education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.”
How do you think it is possible to see your students as teachers, and as having the capacity to educate you, without worrying that you will lose your authority as the teacher? How can we follow Freire's ideas and yet maintain our leadership role in the classroom? Do you think this balance is possible?
I do not see my students as teachers, and I strongly disagree with Freire’s formulation. I have absolutely no intention of following Freire’s ideas. While I do believe many teachers would—and do—have trouble maintaining a leadership role while struggling mightily to pretend to be taught by their students, my objections to “student-teacher, teacher-student” go well beyond the basics of keeping order.
Yes, all teachers can occasionally learn useful information from their students. They can also learn from their own thirteen year olds. They can even, on occasion, pick up useful tips by watching a squirrel hide nuts. All of life is a learning opportunity for everyone. With one major exception (more on that in a minute), students are no more likely to offer learning minutes to their teachers than any other random stranger, and it is patronizing nonsense to pretend otherwise.
If I am teaching my students the quadratic formula, I am not discovering it with them, and I wouldn’t insult them by pretending otherwise. My knowledge does not preclude me from setting them the task of discovering the formula (either through geometry or the algebra of completing the square). But I am not obliged to pretend that students are likely to discover a new algorithm; rather, I’m telling them that they have to find the road to a pre-ordained destination. This method doesn’t eliminate the pride of their achievement, nor the value of mastering and internalizing a process. More importantly, it doesn’t pretend that my students are obligated to provide me with a valuable learning experience as their part of the bargain.
Naturally, teachers learn from their students by observing the students as learners. As a teacher, I am constantly discovering the many different ways in which students with different learning styles require a variety of explanations. But the student is not an equal participant in that discovery process; I am the teacher, and it’s my job to translate their difficulties and successes into rules and behaviors I can put into future practice.
In class today, we discussed the distinction, if any, between ideology and pedagogy. A classmate mentioned that, unlike the rest of us (as he perceived it), he saw ideology in the purely political sense of the word. I didn’t respond (we were, after all, in the Socratic Circle), but I, too, included political ideology in my definition. Freire profoundly conflates pedagogy and political ideology. He is, after all, proposing a libertarian education, which he views as “education as the practice of freedom—as opposed to education in the practice of domination”.
Freire spent much of his life in adult education and his viewpoint was profoundly influenced by working with people in abject poverty. He grew up and worked in various South American dictatorships, and clearly saw education as a means by which the oppressors kept the uneducated masses in control.I don’t know enough about South American history to assess the accuracy of his judgment, but Freire doesn’t restrict his advice to his compatriots. No, education done in the “banking dichotomy” is always oppressive, always a means of control.
Yet somehow, America, which has educated its youth with this “banking” method, has maintained a level of freedom, democracy, and social mobility that relatively few other countries—and none in South America—have managed to approach. I realize that many minorities may feel as if American education is a tool to keep the less powerful in line (indeed, Delpit made direct mention of this paranoia), but isn’t there a clear difference between acknowledging our failings and arguing that our country is indistinguishable from a South American dictatorship? Once we accept that the banking concept has managed to produce several demonstrably free countries, should we nonetheless ignore the fact that Freire’s passionate convictions about education and oppression spring from his very different experience?
While I don’t agree with Freire’s framework, I do accept that some populations view American education as a method of keeping power from the powerless. (They’re wrong, but there’s no arguing with feelings.) However, Freire (or now, his advocates) have not met the burden of proof. Freire doesn’t even try to persuade his readers that his formulation of education conceived as an passionate, angry response to tyranny, is inherently applicable to countries that have used the same methods he disapproves of to achieve far more democratic results.
On page 81 Freire talks about the goal of developing critical consciousness in students. Why do you think "banking education" shuts down the growth of critical consciousness? And why does "problem-posing education" encourage it?
I don’t believe that “banking education” shuts down the growth of critical consciousness. Moreover, I believe that many students shut down or tune out at the “problem-posing” method. Not all students enjoy discovery. Not all students enjoy learning. Even those who enjoy learning might not do as well by themselves as they do with a teacher’s guidance.